24 January 2008

Junk DNA is still a-happening. Ryan Gregory's blog Genomicron is the place to learn about it. He's especially adept at driving trucks through the gaps in ID claims about non-coding DNA. My gestating posts on the subject [sigh] will focus more on Reasons To Believe. Watch for a quote from Obi-Wan!

2. So how exactly does one go about discussing the misuse of science by Christians, especially when the discussion is among Christians? I've been worrying about this lately, and it will soon be clear why. If you're similarly nervous (and/or frustrated) about this, check out the healthy discussion of this issue on the ASA listserv, looking for the thread called "Sins of pseudoscience" (and others).

3. My colleague Dan Harlow (Calvin College Religion Department) has an important new paper in the new issue (Winter 2008) of Christian Scholar's Review, called "Creation According to Genesis: Literary Genre, Cultural Context, Theological Truth." It's based on a paper he gave in the Origins Symposium here at Calvin in 2006, where I met Todd Wood, and it should be worth your trouble to get a copy. (Contact me if you need a hand.)

4. Want your genome sequenced? Your dog's genome? The genome of whatever it is that's growing on the leftover Thai food in the back of the fridge? The company is Helicos Biosciences and they're developing technology that will sequence a genome in 10 days for $1000. Hey...I have four kids...I'll get at least that much from Uncle Sam in a few months...

7. Michael Behe's case in The Edge of Evolution relies heavily on estimates of mutation rates. Last August an article in Science reported that adaptive (i.e., beneficial) mutation rates in bacteria have been spectacularly underestimated. The Science paper explains why this is so, providing both a vastly different estimate of the adaptive mutation rate and an explanation for why previous studies got it wrong. You'd think that Behe would provide a thorough response. Silly you!

Please review my Rules and policies before posting a comment. Note that comments are closed after a month. If you would like to get in touch with me, visit the About page for contact details, including an anonymous comment form that works all the time.

Weekly Sampler 3

Junk DNA is still a-happening. Ryan Gregory's blog Genomicron is the place to learn about it. He's especially adept at driving trucks through the gaps in ID claims about non-coding DNA. My gestating posts on the subject [sigh] will focus more on Reasons To Believe. Watch for a quote from Obi-Wan!

2. So how exactly does one go about discussing the misuse of science by Christians, especially when the discussion is among Christians? I've been worrying about this lately, and it will soon be clear why. If you're similarly nervous (and/or frustrated) about this, check out the healthy discussion of this issue on the ASA listserv, looking for the thread called "Sins of pseudoscience" (and others).

3. My colleague Dan Harlow (Calvin College Religion Department) has an important new paper in the new issue (Winter 2008) of Christian Scholar's Review, called "Creation According to Genesis: Literary Genre, Cultural Context, Theological Truth." It's based on a paper he gave in the Origins Symposium here at Calvin in 2006, where I met Todd Wood, and it should be worth your trouble to get a copy. (Contact me if you need a hand.)

4. Want your genome sequenced? Your dog's genome? The genome of whatever it is that's growing on the leftover Thai food in the back of the fridge? The company is Helicos Biosciences and they're developing technology that will sequence a genome in 10 days for $1000. Hey...I have four kids...I'll get at least that much from Uncle Sam in a few months...

7. Michael Behe's case in The Edge of Evolution relies heavily on estimates of mutation rates. Last August an article in Science reported that adaptive (i.e., beneficial) mutation rates in bacteria have been spectacularly underestimated. The Science paper explains why this is so, providing both a vastly different estimate of the adaptive mutation rate and an explanation for why previous studies got it wrong. You'd think that Behe would provide a thorough response. Silly you!